TheGraphicOnline

Several weeks ago, I made the mistake of saying I was “up to here” with politics, that is, I’d had enough already. The Great Dissenter, Bob Hertzog, disagreed, and apparently lots of others did, too, judging by the monster rallies we’re still seeing, not to mention the lines of people who stood in the rain here in Richmond waiting to see Hillary’s husband (Old What’s-His-Name).

O.K., I’ll apologize for not recognizing that this presidential primary has energized like no other in living memory. Why, it’s almost as exciting as the Herbert Hoover torchlight parades I remember watching in Indy. Anyway, one apology at a time is enough, so here’s something I don’t have to take back. At least a month ago, I predicted that when it came down to Hillary and Obama, since they were so close on their positions, the only thing they’d have left was to attack each other personally. Isn’t that where they are now? Each seems to be lieing in ambush, like a cat watching a canary, waiting for the other to say the wrong word — then to spin it into the proof of a gigantic character flaw in their opponent. One wrong sentence. One wrong word. The power of political words.

How Do They Do It?

Words — words — words! How do they do it — day after day, hour after hour, speech after speech, then hurry to another place to keep saying the same — and smiling all the time? Is it any wonder that every once in awhile they say the wrong words, or at least something that the watchful cat can sink its teeth into? One wrong word can do you in, even lose an election.

First there was Clinton and her arrival under fire in Kosovo. The anti-Clintonites will NEVER let her forget THAT. Then it was Obama and the preacher he won’t cast into outer darkness. A few days ago, he was caught truthfully describing (perhaps with the wrong words) the plight of smaller towns and cities (like Richmond). Ah yes, they’re finally getting to him. I never thought I’d see Hillary stoutly defending the Second Amendment — or rather, defending the defenders of the Second Amendment.

So it was with George W.’s father, whose handlers found that his opponent, Michael Dukakis (remember him?)), was a member of the American Civil Liberties Union — a “card-carrying member!” You might as well know, I am a member of the ACLU — I carry the membership card in my wallet, right next to my American Legion card. Dukakis couldn’t deny it. One word — ACLU — and he was a goner. Four years later, our late, esteemed vice-president Dan Quayle, couldn’t spell potato, and he was toast.

It Can Work Both Ways

It was always thus. One word seems to jump out in each election. Often it become THE word that decides the election. Or maybe just three words, as it was back in 1884, when Grover Cleveland faced James G. Blaine for the presidency. HIs opponent was branded with the ditty: “James G. Blaine, James G. Blaine, the continental liar from the state of Maine!” But Republicans loved and admired him, and he looked like a sure winner. That is, until a Protestant cleric, shortly before the election, in a New York City speech, denounced Cleveland as representing the party of “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion.” (Translation: Beer-drinkers, Catholics, and Southern sympathizers.) The appellation so inflamed the Catholic population (and presumably the beer-drinkers) that they turned out en-masse and shifted the New York state vote to Cleveland, resulting in his victory. Three words! Three words that changed the direction of the country.

One word. One sentence — spoken right or spoken wrong. It can swing elections. What will it be in 2008?

Vic Jose :: Apr.13.2008 :: Uncategorized ::

Trackback URI | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed